Cultural Evaluations of Risk: "Values" or "Blunders"?

View/Open

Date

Author

Metadata

Author

Kahan, Dan

Slovic, Paul

Abstract

What are the respective contributions of culture and rationality to
risk perception? Do disagreements between lay persons and experts
(and among members of both groups) originate in conflicting values,
differing abilities to comprehend technical information, or both? If
conflicting values do play a role, should the law be responsive to popular
perceptions of risk even when expert regulators believe that popular
beliefs are w1'ong?
These are the central questions in the debate between Professor
Sunstein and us. We take the position that cultural worldviews pervade
popular (not to mention expert) risk assessments and that a genuine
commitment to democracy forbids simply dismissing such perceptions
as products of ''bounded rationality. "1 Sunstein disagrees.1
The critical impo1t of Sunstein 's arguments notwithstanding, we
are grateful for his thoughtful reply to our review essay. We now respond
to two of Sunstein 's criticisms, one methodological and the other
substantive.

UO prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national or ethnic origin, age, religion, marital status, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in all programs, activities and employment practices as required by Title IX, other applicable laws, and policies. Retaliation is prohibited by UO policy. Questions may be referred to the Title IX Coordinator, Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, or to the Office for Civil Rights. Contact information, related policies, and complaint procedures are listed on the statement of non-discrimination.